An Incarnational Christmas

Around the Christmas season, it seems that there are generally two camps that develop among Christians in America. I say generally because I suppose that there are no clear categories really, only a spectrum of sorts. On one extreme of this spectrum are those that fully love and embrace all that is "Christmas-y". Santa, elves, trees, hot chocolate, shopping, wrapping gifts, etc. etc. and so forth. I don't want to knock this person because even in the chaos and tradition, there is beauty and can be much life. God can be glorified in these traditions if they are purveyed correctly. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the strict relgionist (for lack of a better term). This is the one who is adamant that all traditions about the holiday must somehow push and relate the Jesus story. I'll be honest, I hover more in this direction and tend to become something of a grinch about certain things. Nevertheless, I think that even for the person who is concerned with keeping Christmas a story about Christ (though it has incorporated many traditions that were not initially Christian but have been adopted by Christendom throughout the ages), there can be a point that is missed.

My purpose in this blog post is simply to point out this aspect of the Jesus story that is often overlooked; at least I have not heard much mention of it this year. I feel that sometimes we can be a little thoughtless when singing Christmas songs, talking about baby Jesus or anything of that nature. A few mistakes we make are when we fast-forward to the crucifixion/resurrection story, when we mess up certain historical facts about the story (e.g. wise men didn't visit until Jesus was about 3 years old, etc.) or when we elaborate on things that we don't know happened (e.g. "the little Lord Jesus, no crying he made..." I think he cried. He was a human baby after all). Of all of this, however, there is a point that I feel is missed most often in Christianity's attempts at keeping Jesus as "the reason for the season" and it is this glaring question:

Why the incarnation?

Why did God need to become man? Tradition holds that Jesus was indeed fully God and fully man, but we somehow tend to gloss over this incredibly key point in the story in favor of a simple "don't forget baby Jesus!" I feel like there are a number of reasons we avoid talking about this. Among them is the possibility that we don't want people to be turned off by the incarnation. After all, it is kind of a hard philosophical pill to swallow -- Creator becoming created thing? Another possibility is that we don't quite know how to reconcile this conundrum in our own lives so we don't want to invite the discussion out into the open. Whatever the reason for our aversion of pointing to the very key aspect of the Christmas story that renders it specifically Christian, we are not excused from understanding and conveying the reality that God came as man. That in and of itself is vital to the story, not simply a necessary step for the "real" purpose, his death and resurrection.

How Was God Human?

In order to explain why the incarnation of God's divine Word is so important for Christians, there needs be a little explanation of how this was possible without either overpowering Christ's humanity or diluting Christ's divinity. Now, I should say that what I'm about to write is merely one of a vast plethora of explanations within Christian thought. Be that as it may, it is the explanation that has rang most true theologically as well as practically in my life.

First and foremost, we must understand what makes up a person. I have written in the past about the constitution of a human and its relation to mourning and death. The basic takeaway, however, is that humans, aside from being some convolution of body/soul/spirit/mind (these are the general categories used to describe a human), are intrinsically relational. To this extent then we can conclude that we are essentially the sum total of the relationships that we have. So, Jesus was fully man and fully God. 100% human and 100% divine, not some 60%/40% combo or even a fair 50%/50%. To understand this, I find it helpful to take analogy from my own life. As an intrinsically relational person (like God), I am 100% father, 100% son, 100% brother, etc. I am no more of one than another though I may act in one mode at a time or several at a time. When we understand our personhood this way, the incarnation of Christ does not seem so odd. Jesus was fully God and related to all things fully as God. He was also fully man and related to all things as a man does. There could be much more elaboration on this point but I do want to leave space for the reader to ponder. Besides, a full fleshing out of this point would need a whole other post at least and a few hundred books at most!

Why Was God Human?

So here we come to the meat of the issue: the "why" question. Was it not enough for God to simply say "well, humanity, I know Adam messed up but, well, you're pretty good. All is forgiven!"? I mean, if God is a just God, why did he need to stoop so low (taking on flesh) and then go on to die (also critical to the story but remember our focus on the incarnation).

To first approach the topic, we need to frame the issue so that we understand what humanity's role was initially. Mankind was put on earth to act as medium between the created world and the uncreated God. Our ability to stand in both planes, physical and spiritual, allow us to fulfill this divine appointment like no other creature. So, when humanity fell so too did all of the created order of things; that is, creation's way to connect with God was broken. Eastern Orthodox theologian, John D. Zizioulas explains it this way:

"Creation came from nothing, and since it is permeated with the forces of dissolution, it always faces the prospect of reverting back to nothing."

So here we understand that our intrinsic problem  is not caused by sin at the fall but is inherent by our finitude. Death -- real death, metaphysical death and not just physical death -- is a basic creation problem. Humanity was meant to connect creation to God forever and thus facilitate enternality for creation. Sin blocks our ability to fill this role but ultimately there was always need for this mediator -- this perfect human. We are created and as such have no power to remain in existence forever; it is natural to revert to nothingness. There is an "out", however, and that loophole is found in communion with the infinite, the uncreated, the Creator. Before we could fulfill our role, however, sin had to be dealt with. Church Father, Athanasius says

"It was unworthy of the goodness of God that creatures made by Him should be brought to nothing through the deceit wrought upon man by the devil; and it was supremely unfitting that the work of God in mankind should disappear, either through their own negligence or through the deceit of evil spirits...what then was God, being  good, to do?"

It was absurd that God should let creation go on reverting to nothing but sin was in the way so that his original plan was thwarted. God faced a two-fold problem then: 1. creation is "dying" 2. humanity cannot be the way they were intended to be. So, being ultimately wise as he is, God decided to step into the story himself in a way that he had never before done (though he had before in various ways through prophets, leaders of Israel and in direct modalities). He became that which always needed to be: the perfect human and, while there, did what ultimately needed done: the rectifying of a world out of balance, the ultimate destruction of sin. Though this ultimate reality remains to be seen, Jesus did what needed done to set the course right again and then invites us to take up the role that we always should have had as intermediate between Creator and creation -- this is the true Christian.

Conclusive Thoughts

In reality, there is much more that could be said about the whole human-creation-God story but, of course, that must be saved for another time and possibly another format. What needs said is that 

The incarnation of God is ultimately about connecting creation to Creator in the most ultimate way. 

It is God showing us the perfect route to be what we were always meant to be. Again, we listen to Zizioulas:

"The disease here is death, so a cure for death is what we are looking for. Salvation has often been set out in moral and judicial terms, in which death has been caused by man's act of disobedience. But it was not our disobedience that caused this evil; it just made its cure impossible. The problem cannot be put right simply by our obedience. Athanasius pointed out that if the problem could be solved simply by forgiving Adam his sin, God could have done so...God could have forgiven him, and all would have been well. But Athanasius showed that the heart oft he problem was not obedience or disobedience, because this was not a moral but an ontological problem. What was required was for the Logos to come to man, and indeed to become man, so that all that has been created can be united to the uncreated."

So in this Christmas season, let us have our presents, our feasts and our family time; these things are good when dedicated to God. Let us also push to remain conscious of the ultimate reason for the season, Jesus. But let us do those things with a mental "eye" to the cosmic aspect of this story. God reconnects creation to Creator and, in the Spring, we'll celebrate his making a way for us to fulfill this role as well. 

Have a blessed holy-day season,

CM

*Further reading:
The Divine Dilemma and it's Solution in the Incarnation. (1998). In On the incarnation: The treatise De incarnatione Verbi Dei. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Zizioulas, J., & Knight, D. (2008). Creation and Salvation: Christology. In Lectures in Christian dogmatics. London: T & T Clark.

The Talking God

I've often times throughout my studies in theology come across times of crisis. What I mean by that is that on occasion, I find myself asking a paradigm building/breaking question. The one I would like to tell you about today is the question that came up while I was writing worship music and trying to discern what God had in store for the future of my family. The question was this:

Does God still speak to people in the same way that he did as recorded in the Bible?

So while I was thinking about this for the purpose of discerning what my life is to be about and for the purpose of writing theologically sound music, I think there is a potentially revolutionary outcome that can occur depending on how you answer.

The Relevance

This question is a big one because, depending on how you answer, you may find yourself viewing the stories of God speaking to humanity in Scripture a little differently or you may find yourself reevaluating how you may have thought God spoke to you in the past (present or future as well). For example, if you come down on the side of "yes", that is, God does still speak to us in the same way that he did in the Bible, then you must decide how you think that is. Often times in Scripture, we see God explicitly making verbal conversation with people (e.g. Abraham, Paul, etc.). If this is the case, then we must expect to hear of God speaking verbally to people today. This should push us to evaluate our own theophanies (God encounters) and see if we've heard from God in a clear voice. Without trying to find reasons why we may or may not have experienced this, one can reasonably see that this hypothetical would play out into your life in a much broader way than one might initially assume.

On the other hand, if one decides that God has ceased speaking in the same way that he did in the Bible then we are free from expecting God to be explicit with us in a verbal way. The issue here is that you are then left with figuring out how God does speak, since all Christians agree that he wants to know us and be known by us. Many have suggested that perhaps since the close of the Christian cannon (Scriptures), God uses the Bible as his mouthpiece or since the establishment of the Church as a corporate and formal entity that then is his speaking mode. While this may be a bit more palatable (for it excuses our lack of audible theophanies), one is then left with trying to draw lines between what is indeed divine message and what may be distorted due to human intervention. 

Some Clarity

Just as a spoiler alert, I should say here that I won't be able to give you the whole answer. Not only would that be presumptuous of me, but I would be shouldering a burden I'm fairly sure I cannot bear. So, let me tell you where I came down on this issue and perhaps that will help you to think through it yourself.

I personally do not agree with those who think God suddenly changed his mode of communication. I just cannot find any good reason for this to be done (not that my own reasoning is the highest of authority), I have not found it confirmed in Scripture (though I'm not a biblical scholar, so if you are, please let me know if it's there) and it has not been a unified belief throughout Christian tradition. I think that it makes all the sense in the world that God would still speak to humanity the way he did in the Bible. I, however, also believe that in the cases in Scripture where God is recorded as speaking his explicit will, there may have been literary liberty taken on the part of the writers. 

I believe that God could speak by auditory if he so chose, but from what I can tell in Scripture, Christian tradition and my own experience, God likes to work within the laws of reality which he established from the beginning of time. This means that in order for him to do so, he would have to commandeer a set of vocal chords and, gentleman that he is, God is not in the possessing people business.

So how does God speak? I think that God speaks through feelings and impulses but also through internal confirmations of ideas. For example, I felt that a while back (in answer to my trying to discern the future for my family) God gave me the phrase "eyes forward, hands on the plow" to hang onto for encouragement, direction and support. Now, this phrase is clearly playing from Scripture in which Jesus says that whoever lays his hand to the plow and looks back is not fit for the Kingdom. So I think that (in this case at least) God may have helped me to use the Scripture which I had hidden in my memory to speak relevance into my current situation. Was it audible? certainly not. Was it powerful in my life? definitely. 

You may be wondering how I know it was God at all and not just my own recollection. Furthermore, how does anyone know when God is speaking to them? I have found that there are a few ways one can seek confirmation. Some of them are:

1. God only speaks when you're listening. I know that seems like a no-brainer, but in practice, we tend to say too much when we pray and not spend enough time listening.
2. God's messages are usually (as I've experienced them) messages which I doubt I would come up with on my own. This is usually the case when I am being prompted inside my mind to love or sacrifice when I know I would rather be selfish.
3. God's messages will always align with the Character of God as seen in Jesus. Notice I didn't say "in the Bible" but instead said "in Jesus". There is often misunderstanding when one uses the broad paint brush of all of Scripture instead of the narrow paint brush of Jesus; specifically, without Jesus as the key to all hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation), one can end up with a pretty scary god coming out of the Old Testament. All you need is love and all you need is Jesus; he is sufficient.
4. God's messages will generally align with the Christian tradition. Again, we have to go back to Jesus ultimately (or first?) because Christianity has not always (or often?) looked like Jesus. But because the Church is the body and bride of Christ, we should find continuity between what we think God is saying to us and what he has said in the past to our sister's and brother's in Christ.

Of course I could say more on this topic, but I'll leave the rest to you. Also, read this guy and this guy's blogs as they may have things to say on the matter as well.

Think well, love well and listen well to the Spirit of God which is in you.

Peace,
C.M.

Who is Your God?

I have found on my short journey through life that, while I believe there is properly only one true God, there are many versions of him (see, I said him...) in people's individual understandings. By typing that sentence, I have already disclosed that I refer to God as a male, though of course there is no gender associated with the supreme one. I'll go further and admit that the idea of God being a Father is also part of my picture of God, but this is not so helpful for other people.

My purpose in raising this issue here is to simply "shake up the dust", if you will. I want to issue a challenging question to all who may read this. The question is this:

Who is Your God?

Now, you may be wondering why I would ask something so basic and ambiguous to Christians (as that is my audience). My purpose is to spur you on to press in a little and find out if the picture of God that you have in mind actually looks like Christ; more poignantly, does the image of God in your mind look like Jesus of Nazareth, being tortured by Romans for no obvious reason? If not, I hope that you will consider the possibility that you may have a less-than-accurate picture of who God is and, thus, what he is like.

Why is this important?

  I feel I should explain why I think that it is important to evaluate and, periodically in life, re-evaluate our picture of God. For those that believe in God (any God really), it is found that the picture that they have of God will always dictate their actions to one degree or another. The most obvious manifestations of this effect is in worship. So, for example, if my picture of God is the "buddy God" which is often resultant of over-emphasizing the Abrahamic claim to be a "friend of God", then one might be less inclined to view our relationship to God with reverence and humility; after all, if God is my pal, then I can drop the formalities.

Another example might be the EMS or Butler God. This is when people only turn to the divine when things go wrong in their lives. A loved one is sick, the bills aren't getting paid, a new boat sounds nice...then and only then do they call upon God. The Bible is full of examples of Israel doing this; they would start to live like every other people group around them but when things went wrong, they would call upon God for help. The big issue here is that it becomes an abusive relationship where we want all of the benefits of the relationship without any of the sacrifice.

The final lacking picture of God that I want to point out is what some who conducted a study on youth between 2003 and 2005 termed "Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism". If we break this term down we see a picture of God that I'm afraid we find all-too familiar. This picture of God is moralistic in the sense that all that we derive from this picture is concerned with our morals; specifically if we're behaving in such a way that it deems appropriate. It is therapeutic in the sense that it makes us feel good and is always concerned that we live comfortable lives and is thus there to get us out of tough spots and comfort us. Finally, it is Deistic in the sense that it assumes that God is more or less uninvolved unless he necessarily must be. I don't have to go on much further to point out that this is not the passionate, paradigm-breaking, challenging and personable God that Jesus shows us by calling us to the cross of Christianity. 

Concluding Thoughts

In all fairness, there is usually some room for each of the ideas we have about God in small amounts; that is, it's ok to seek help from God, he does love us; it is ok to see him as our friend to the extent that we can confide in him and discover companionship in that relationship. Also, it is true that God does care about our righteousness and wants good things for us. Where things go wrong is when we try and take any one facet of God and build our whole image of him on that small revelation which leads us to a picture that looks different than Christ on Calvary.

 

We must always keep the centrality of Jesus' sacrifice for us in our hearts. To hold another picture leads us to a misconstrued relationship which will have rippling effects in our lives and the lives of those that follow us. So, spend some time reflecting on how you understand God; if it is anything other than Jesus, I encourage you to press yourself to discover why and perhaps search out clarity in this matter. Your picture of God will dictate your relationships, your worship and your life so we must ensure that it is a picture of as much clarity as possible. 

Peace,

C.M.

"When Christians realize that we have an intrinsically Jesus-looking God, what follows next is a deep-seated longing for an intrinsically Jesus-looking Church. This alone has the power to yield and intrinsically Jesus-looking world and that can only be a good thing."

Church Authority and Excommunication

If there is one thing that has not changed over the whole course of Church history, it is that there will always be a tension between the Church and the world. Christ clearly tells us via his words and example to engage the culture around us, not flee from it. On the other hand, there is clear admonition from the Bible to take care to keep the Church holy and set apart from the world. By way of a case example, let's look at 1 Corinthians 5 in which Paul is rebuking the church in Corinth because of their embracing of some who are clearly "living in sin" (to borrow a churchy term). Take a second, if you can and read this 13 verse chapter...go ahead...

 

Ok, so now that you're back, we can stop and think through this critically.

Now, to be honest, Paul comes across really strong here with his rebuke. He says that the members of the church should be "mourning in sorrow and shame" for the behavior of some among them who were being sexually promiscuous to a degree that even the Roman pagans would not go to. While it would be easy to take this first section and write off a number of people for their sins (homosexuals, those living with their bf's/gf's, those who sleep around, etc.), let's read the rest of it and keep it contextualized.

The key conditional that Paul sets up in this section is whom exactly he's talking to. If you read verses 9 through 13 he is adamant and clear that the people he is talking about are not unbelievers. Get that? He specifically says that

it is not the place of a church leader to judge those that are outside of the Church. 

It is, however, his job to be concerned with those who claim to be Christians and to those - whom he is writing about - he says that the righteous Christians who are in fellowship and the leaders in Corinth are to disassociate with them. So why the harsh words, Paul?

If we read verses 5 through 8, we see his concern. It isn't so much that he doesn't want them to be a part of the church but that he is worried that their lax morality will become a new standard for Christian righteous behavior and that would be a degradation to the legacy of Christ who held his followers to the highest of standards (Sermon on the Mount, anyone?).

So what are we to do with this? What does the modern Church do with a passage like this?

First

We need to remember that our hermeneutic key is Jesus; all Scripture points to him and is a testament of his reality of God and what the Kingdom looks like. If we forget that Jesus is our starting and ending point, then we can read a verse like this and start to think of the church in exclusivist terms instead of universal terms. Christ came that all should be saved, not some. "God's people" are no longer limited to a small genetic pool but instead are characterized by the indwelling of God's Spirit and known by their love for one another.

If this is our truth, then we must immediately throw out the idea that this passage of Scripture supports in any way a practice of shunning or kicking people out of the church permanently. Instead we need to look at the heart of what this passage is concerned about which is the degree of influence that those intentionally living in sin have in our churches. To be more clear, it isn't so much that we should disassociate with those who know they're doing wrong as it is right that we ensure the safety of other Christians who might mess up also because of their poor example; this is done by being careful and stringent about who is allowed to lead or be influential in our churches, not by simply cutting them off or preaching against them (no ad hominems now).

The Church is to be a people who are about love, not hate; inclusivity, not exclusivity; nurturing and growth, not cutting off and excommunication. 

Second

We also need to realize the context that this was written in; that is, there wasn't a church building on every other corner like there is in most American cities. In the U.S., if a church wanted to follow a literalist interpretation of this passage, they would run into a major problem of logistics. Specifically, if one were to be excommunicated from church "A" by Pastor A, then there is nothing stopping the excommunicated person from going down the street to church "B" who has little to no knowledge of Pastor  A's decision.

These are different times and the church look's differently. Does this mean that we're off the hook from keeping people accountable to the standard of Christ? Absolutely not! Verse 13 in this chapter comes to the sound conclusion that God will take care of the judgement of those who are outside of the Church, but it is the job of the Church to care for those within it's influence. So this means that Christians ought to feel free to speak truth in love about another person's life but not to condemn or cut off.

Finally

I would be selling this post short if I didn't give some clear direction as to what the modern Christian ought to do in response to brother's and sister's of the Church who are intentionally maintaining a life of sin.

Be Christ to them

This is much easier said than done, of course. It is, however, likely the only way that their heart (will and emotions) might be won back to Christ in the fullest way possible. So how do we treat them as Christ would? We love, we befriend, we affirm their immeasurable worth and after we've built up a reputation of love with that person, we can correct them and they will accept the correction because they know that it is only out of love that any correction comes.

It is not our job to be accuser (that's Satan's gig) nor judge (that's God's job) much less executioner. It is our job to love them and allow them to see the Kingdom in our lives; only in this way will they see that their intentional choice to live out of sync with Christ's Kingdom is an impoverished way of life. The Church is solely the people who make her up; the Church's authority lies in it's capacity to love the broken of the world.

peace

C.M.

For a couple more points of view on the same topic and passage check out this blog and this blog.

Lord Lord

In our Christian subculture it is not at all uncommon to refer to God as "Lord" in prayer and in conversation. This practice comes straight from Scriptures and has consistently been a part of the Christian tradition since then. You're probably thinking "ok, Captain Obvious, thanks for the not-history lesson"...kidding, I know you're not that rude. My purpose in bringing this up is that I think that in our modern context, we tend to use this term without giving it the due respect it deserves and, sometimes, without thinking at all.

"...So, by their fruits you will get knowledge of them. Not everyone who says to me "Lord, Lord" will go into the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the pleasure of my Father in heaven..."

                                                                  Matt. 7:20 & 21

First off, when we read this passage, we need to remember that what Jesus isn't saying is that we have to read God's mind and do what he wants perfectly or we won't "get to heaven when we die" (think hymn in those quotations). He's not saying that only a small select group will get to be with God for eternity. No, what he's saying is that not all who go under the title "Christian", who call him "Lord" in their prayers and in reference to him, and those who do good things will be in his kingdom.

The word for "Lord" in this passage is transliterated as the Greek word kurios (koo'-ree-os) which (as I understand it, though I'm not a professional in Biblical Greek) means specifically "one who owns, has power over or is master of". Now you may be thinking "yeah, Jesus paid for my sins and so I guess he's the boss o' me" and when modern Christians think of this and when preachers preach on Jesus being our Lord, they usually hover around this legal meaning of "Lord" as in Lord and serf. To a first century Jew, however, this term kurios would have also included their God, the Creator of all. Thus, when Jesus is saying that "Lord" is not an indicator of who is in his kingdom, he's using a bigger paintbrush, if you will. He's using a word that connotes the one who is king of the universe, the Creator of all existence and the One who simply is.

The Danger of It

Why is this a big deal? Why does it matter if I say "Lord", isn't that just the same as saying God?

Well, in our subculture, people often use it as a synonym for Jesus, God, etc. but my purpose here, in part, is to specifically say NO; it isn't the same and this is a big deal.

 The great danger of using the term "Lord" without submitting to the Creator is that we tend to then simply project whatever we'd like to onto this faux-Lord so that our faith is a little easier. i.e. "I'd better buy a new coat this winter so that I can give my old one to the needy" or "I'm helping my coworker learn about right and wrong by not refilling the copy machine after I've emptied it. After all, they did it too and what goes around comes around". We make up pseudo-pious excuses with our faux-Lord instead of submitting to Jesus.

#AmIDoingThisRight

When we pray, sing a worship song, write to God or meditate, do we use the word "Lord"? If so, is Jesus - who is God - actually the kurios of your world? Does he own it, create it, pervade it and have dominion over it? Can people tell? What Jesus was saying right before he says the "Lord, Lord" bit was that you'll be able to tell who belongs to him because of the fruits of their lives. If someone is calling Jesus "Lord" but is not developing a life that reflects the communal love of the Triune Godhead, then there might be a problem. While it is not our place to judge anyone, it is our job to help our sisters and brothers in Christ become more like him who submitted perfectly to the will of Yahweh.

So, reflect: is this me? am I doing it right? If you don't feel like God is truly the kurios of your life, perhaps switch up your references to him to something you can more honestly say. Jesus taught us to call him Abba (daddy) after all. Crucify your faux-Lord because he cannot come back from the grave. Embrace the true kurios of existence as your Lord.

peace,

C.M.

 p.s. I didn't use a picture of Kanye West to judge him as one who misuses the term; I only want to point out that, as a culture, we don't think twice before using this term as fashion instead of its holy intended purpose. No judgement here.

On Miraculous Healings

This morning I want to write to you and tell you about one pondering I had yesterday while working (I work in a vinyard so I have lots of time to think). I ran out of coffee, however, so I had to go get some this morning and my writing time was cut into, so we'll see how far I get :)

I was thinking about Jesus healing people because of the faith of others, mostly relatives, in the new testament. There are several times where Jesus tells people that their "faith has made them whole" and this makes sense to us because we generally like to feel like we have a say in what happens to us. But what about those who were healed because of the faith of another? The possessed boy healed because of his father's struggling faith: "I believe, but help my unbelief". When Jesus brings the little girl back to life, he tells her parents to "believe". So my question in all of this pondering was "why this"?

In light of modern medicine, we often feel like there is little that can happen to a person that can't be saved if caught early enough. Sadly, this is a misplaced confidence. Still, when we pray that God heals someone and they don't become well, we are stuck between our mourning and this Biblical heritage of miraculous healings. Why doesn't this happen now more regularly?

After the better part of an hour trying to wrestle something sensible out of this conundrum, I finally just gave up and said "God, if you have a good answer for this, I'm up for it". Then nothing really happened. It wasn't until a couple hours later, after I had been praying and singing while I worked that a thought came to me. This thought was to view Jesus' miraculous healings in a cosmic framework; one that superseded the event itself.

What if God was getting at something more than just the individual event?

If there is one thing that is true, it is that God knows the big picture much better than we do. So, what if the miraculous healings that Jesus accomplished were not merely to the end of bettering that individual's life? Furthermore, what if those healings were for more than just establishing his authority and divine status for those following him (which they certainly did)? What else could they be for?

An Exemplary Event

I think that the healings that we see in Scripture which were accomplished by another person's faith were to be a demonstration to us of how our faith is not our own. Perhaps there is a metaphysical principle at work in these events in which the faith of a believer - even a struggling believer - is enough to heal a person.

When I think about sin, I think the most accurate understanding is to hold to the Eastern Orthodox view in which our propensity towards sin is understood as an illness instead of a dirtiness, like it's understood in the Western Church. This reminds me of Jesus saying that a doctor doesn't come for the well but for the sick - the sick in spirit.

Our faith in Jesus can heal other people. Where we miss out on much life in our faith is when we stop short with this idea and think that miraculous healing via one's own or another's faith is only needed in physical maladies. The reality is that Jesus comes as a healer of spirits, a mender of hearts and a restoring breath of fresh air to a stagnant soul. 

The Take-away

So, when you read about Jesus healing someone because of another person's faith, remember that this principle holds for today. 

Your faith may be the difference between life and death for someone's spirit.

Whether you demonstrate that faith through your friendship or through your prayers, know that the faith in Jesus that you live in can be a healing force in a person's life. Perhaps that person ends up becoming a brother or sister in Christ. Perhaps all you ever accomplish is for them to feel like, because of your relationship with them, that there is hope for the Christian religion and we're not all "hypocritical, moral-nazis with long 'don't do' lists". 

When you pray for other people like these parents in Scripture did, pray that Jesus heals someone's body AND spirit because of your faith.

Peace,

C.M.

Eastern Orthodox Tradition

Hello all! Again, here is a short history-related post so as to expand your horizons, so to speak. This post is about Eastern Orthodoxy. For those of us in the west who have little to no experience with it, let this be a primer. I've included several sources so that you can find some other people who are more qualified than I to give you information about our Eastern Christian family.

 The Eastern Orthodox Tradition

While it may be easiest for American Christians to look back at history and reflect with the assumption in mind that events surrounding and following the Protestant Reformation were the bulk of what was relevant between the 1500’s and modern times, it must be remembered that the Church is much larger than many Western minds acknowledge. In the East – particularly Russia – there were many exciting things happening. Men like Alexis Khomyakov and St. Innocent of Alaska were leaving their mark on how the Eastern Orthodox Church understood Christian worship and community. The Church in the East was contributing to the larger Christian tradition which may have greater implications in the next stage of Christian development here in the 21^st century.

Evolutions in the Orthodox Tradition

            The contributions and figures from the Eastern Orthodox tradition which are examined here all come after the fall of Constantinople and focus on Russian Orthodoxy as this was the major source of Orthodox theology for most of the period leading up to modernity. The first man of note is St. Innocent of Alaska (1797-1879) who was commissioned by the Academy of Kazan to increase missionary presence there.[1] Specifically, this married priest was sent to the Aleut people and was so enthralled with their way of life that he strove to learn the language and translate the Bible into Unagan which was the primary Aleutian dialect. In 1838 he lost his wife and after taking the vows of a monk was made Bishop of a rather large area which included the Aleutian Islands, the Kamchatka Peninsula and more. Eventually he became the head of the Moscow Synod in 1868.[2]

            The many achievements of St. Innocent, while impressive in themselves, must be seen as part of a larger movement towards a simple and grounded faith. This movement was largely catalyzed by the publication of a book entitled Philokalia, translated as “the love of beauty”. This text was essentially a compilation of Eastern mystical texts that helped bring ascetic life back into vivacity in the Orthodox tradition. In order to get a quick look at how this movement developed, one can merely observe the growth from 452 functioning Orthodox monasteries in 1812 to 1045 monasteries in 1914.[3] This movement was also heavily founded on the Hesychist tradition which, as defended by St. Gregory Palamas in the 14^th century, is founded on a mystical notion of returning to oneself with the understanding that the Spirit of God is indwelling in the person. This largely gave theological worth back to the carnal parts of a human and made practical ministry vital to Christian living and thus Orthodox Christianity.[4]

            Along those same lines, Eastern Orthodox theology became more clearly articulated in contrast to the rival Protestant and Catholic explanations. The uniqueness of Orthodoxy is in the primary understanding that ecclesial function should begin with the Eucharist – that is, worship – and the ascetic tradition. The former of these two foundational points included traditional liturgy and the latter contained the elevation of the lay-theologian.[5] Along with the lay-theologians who were responsible for many road-side chapels which were constructed in this period, there was also an influx in ascetic spiritual leaders known as Startsi which translates as “old man”. Rarely receiving a formal education or ordination, these confessor-counselor-wise men were theologically on par with Catholicism’s ordained theologians.[6] These spiritual leaders in combination with the Hesychist influence and missions work such as that accomplished by St. Innocent all gave Eastern Orthodoxy a large measure of substantiality and longevity in practical Christian living.

A Balanced Theology

            The second man to be mentioned  is Alexis Khomyakov (1804-1860) who, as a Slavophile under Tsar Nicholas I strove alongside his companion Ivan Kireyevsky to establish Eastern Orthodox as the middle ground between Protestant and Roman Catholic extremes.[7] Part of this effort was motivated by Nicholas’ views of Russian Orthodoxy as a defense against “westernizing”. Khomyakov’s basic thesis, then, was that Orthodoxy already held within its theology the freedom which many turned to Protestantism for as well as the unity in the church which Roman Catholicism was known for.[8] This both/and position essentially set the stage for later developments in ecumenical theology which was more than a cheap truce among traditions and more than a mere defining of lines which are not to be crossed.[9] Instead, the work of Khomyakov and company was to reread history in light of the many different perspectives of Christianity and to try and renew Orthodoxy as valuable to the rest of the Christian tradition.

Concluding Thoughts

            The Eastern Orthodox tradition is often overlooked by westerners and, in light of all that has been written here, it seems that this should not be so. The church today is in the middle of evolving into whatever it will be next and as we progress in a world that is incredibly secular, it may be advantageous to look to how the Russian Orthodox tradition maintained its distinctness in the midst of a changing world. With a commitment to traditional worship and personal piety, the Orthodox Church has largely succeeded in being a good representation of Christian community in the spiritual heritage of Christianity. The next generation of leaders in the 21^st century would do well to give this tradition its well-deserved attention for the sake of the future Church.

References

Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

González, Justo L. From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century. Nashville: Abingdon Pr., 1987.

Hart, David Bentley. The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith. London: Quercus, 2007.

Janz, Denis, Richard A. Horsley, Virginia Burrus, Derek Krueger, Daniel Ethan Bornstein, Peter Matheson, Amanda Porterfield, and Mary Farrell Bednarowski. "Orthodoxy Under Communism." In A People's History of Christianity, 132-36.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004.

Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.

Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008.

---

[1] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

[2] Hart, David Bentley. The Story of Christianity: An Illustrated History of 2000 Years of the Christian Faith. London: Quercus, 2007. 219-220.

[3] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

[4] Meyendorff, John. St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974.106-108.

[5] Zizioulas, Jean, and Douglas H. Knight. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. London: T & T Clark, 2008. 120-126.

[6] Janz, Denis, Richard A. Horsley, Virginia Burrus, Derek Krueger, Daniel Ethan Bornstein, Peter Matheson, Amanda Porterfield, and Mary Farrell Bednarowski. "Orthodoxy Under Communism." In A People's History of Christianity, 132-36.

[7] Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. "The Russian Empire and the Russian Orthodox Church." In Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, 663-64.

[8] González, Justo L. From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century. Nashville: Abingdon Pr., 1987. 424-425.

[9] Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004. 7-9.

On Death and Identity

Why does death hurt if we believe in Jesus? I mean, if we're going to see all of our deceased loved ones again someday, what sadness is there? After all, don't we love to cry "Oh Death, where is your sting?!" on Easter? So why do we cry? What mourning is there to be done if a loved one has died?

I shall endeavor to answer this question here. Be forewarned, like everything else on this blog, these are my beliefs personally and you're welcome to disagree :)

What is Death?

I believe in a theory which is known as "soul sleep"; it's this idea that when you die, your soul takes a long nap until it can be reunited with your perfected body in the resurrection. I think this jives well with Scripture and simply makes sense (because I have little confidence in alternate realities and thus have a hard time placing "heaven" as an ontological place). I do think that while we are sleeping we are given the sweetest dreams in which God comes to us in fellowship and we are allowed to experience paradise at that point, but these are not to be final - that is saved for the resurrection.

So, if this is what is in store for my loved ones, then why would I cry? Hold that thought.

Who Am I?

I think that when we understand our identity it must be seen in terms of relationship. I think that part of the image of God that we bear is the necessity for relationship as the Father is in relationship to the Son and Spirit and creation as a whole and us in particular. This means that, in a sense, I am the sum of the relationships that I have - to my wife, children, parents, siblings, friends, acquaintances, etc. So, when I meet someone new, I immediately give them a measure of myself and am changed to a small degree on a metaphysical level. The longer and more intimate of a relationship that I have with this person (any person), the more that they affect who I am and I them.

Why does this matter? Hold that thought too.

Putting it together as a Christian

When I take these two ideas and put them together and ask why death hurts Christians emotionally (which can lead to physical pains, but we won't go there in this post), I am brought to the following conclusion:

The pain that we feel from losing a loved one is the pain of self-separation.

This is not to say that I, as an individual am personally disintegrated, but that a part of me has metaphysically left me and there is a hole of sorts in its stead. There is pain in this and there is sorrow, but it is not at the idea that I'll never see this person again, nor is it in any doubt about their relationship to God (which is none of my business really). Instead, it hurts because I am fundamentally a different person without that loved one in my life.

Other places that the theory holds

This idea also seems sensible in the face of divorce in which a relationship that was once so intimate is now torn apart. Children and ex-spouses alike feel the void and, though they may be happy with new companions, there is still a connection to the previous life. If both people are still living, there is still a part that impacts the others identity.

This theory also supports why sex outside of marriage is a bad idea; that is, when one shares the intimate connection that a healthy sexual relationship is suppose to contain, a deep part of themselves are connected. When one promiscuously sleeps around - or even just has sex with whomever they're dating at the time, even if they only date a different person every 5 years - it is spiritually damaging and what is divinely designed to be a permanent relationship gets worn out like a screw that is stripped from overuse. There can be healing when a permanent relationship is established, but this process is painful.

Finally, this theory holds when we see childhood friends for the first time in a long time. The rekindling of relationships that have been long set aside can be one of the most beautiful moments because that part of you that has been untapped for so long can finally be re-explored. Childhood friends and school mates are great to keep around, but sometimes its sweeter to re-acquaint them later in life as well.

Concluding Thoughts

I encourage my reader to take some time to think about their relationships and life experiences in light of this theory. If every person I meet literally shapes who I am on a metaphysical level, perhaps I ought to be more careful with my relationships in general. Maybe I should be kinder to strangers who may end up having a long bearing on my life and whom I impact with my life. Perhaps my testament to the good news which is the establishment of the Kingdom of God is found more within how I shape people's lives with my friendship and not in my ability to argue well. There are profound implications and it is good to chase them out. 

In regard to the topic at our outset: grief, it is natural and healthy

to feel pain at the loss of a loved one, but listen well to Scripture to hear Jesus whisper to you "why are you crying? They're only sleeping". Allow the Spirit of God which is in you to heal the hole that has been left by a relationship lost; Christ is enough.

Peace,

C.M.